>>108853945
as opposed to closed source software by the same companies
you know can audit the code and compile it yourself you mongoloid nigger

>>108853945
>dude opensource lolmao if you dont like it fix it yourself
>is this repo a reproducible build?
>no
>can i just submit a patch
>no
>then what do you mean opensource
>shut up and donate chud we need 17 million for a conference in Uganda

yeah corporate funding is bad actually

>In order to qualify for a tax-exemption under section 501(c)(6), the organization must specify that it seeks to promote and improve business condition for a specific type of business.
>An association that promotes the common interests of certain hobbyists would not qualify because the Internal Revenue Service does not consider hobbies to be activities conducted as businesses.

>>108853945
>Corporations BAD

Open source is not the left-wing libertarian wet dream you think it is. There is a reason why GPL doesn't impose any rules on financials.

File: iusearchbtw.png (808 KB, 2048x1152)

808 KB PNG

microslop you say?

>>108853945
Linux and open-source have been a psyop from the beginning. They scrubbed every mention of user freedom and just targeted businesses for saving costs (mostly through gratis labor). Copyleft is taboo, unfortunately for them it's grandfathered into the kernel but they avoid it for everything else and encourage the "community" to write their software for them. Not contributing anything back of course.

>>108853945
Forced to upstream their changes btw. I love how M*crosoft is a platinum member, lol.

I think copyleft is really important for vital software the whole world relies on. I like BSD, but look at it... companies just take their code and use it to make profit. Playstation can play games fine, but look at FreeBSD... MacOS has wide software support, but look at FreeBSD... Look at Netflix... the list goes on.

>>108853952
>you know can audit the code and compile it yourself
Almost no one compiles the software they use.
Literally no one reads all the source code for the software they use.

>>108853958
>is this repo a reproducible build?
>yes
>can i just submit a patch
>yes
>am i knowledgeable enough to do so?
>no
>then that's that
ftfy

>>108853945
>closed source
Once a product gets shitty its over forever, there is almost no hope of recovering it
You are constantly at the mercy of the distributor, if they close up shop or chop off your access to features you enjoyed you are fucked. They can also price gouge you as much as they like and you have to pay up like a good piggy.
>open source
The product is actively encouraged to improve since people can just turn up and fork it/make a better version. The community (or big corporate sponsors) can even contribute code themselves to improve it. Being truly open source means that anything behind a paywall actually has to have a technical reason for it, and excessive judaism will just result in a fork somewhere down the line.
Yes, the lucrative pay package offered by big companies often suck up the better talent and poaching by especially predatory types is rampant but thats the reality of the world and its not a moat that works forever.
Eventually open source will surpass all paid options, also people don't actually want to pay for shit services.
>windows is 99% pirated
>adobe shit is 99% pirated
>music/video software is 99% pirated
>Blender dominates 3D modelling tutorials because you don't need to pirate it and autodesk actually tries to stop piracy of modern versions somewhat


When people actually have to pay, open source wins out. Close source only makes money from corporate big tech contracts

>>108855309
Cute babble but nobody believes you. Your tiny who even gives a shit project with 1000 stars, 15 contributors, and only 1 person offering more than 1k lines (main dev) isn't saving your utter copium, you pathetic retard.

Blah, blah, blah, muh community, then proceeds to spend 10% of the post conflating "muh freedum :tm:, not muh free as in coffee". I think your post really goes to show the general audience how serious freetards are when they can't even get their own ideology straight.

>>108854401
>There is a reason why GPL doesn't impose any rules on financials.
It does: you can't sell gpl code

>>108855363
Wow, someone shit in your coffee and you drank the whole cup today huh

>>108853945
Why are you talking like that?
Are you okay, Anonymous?

Corporation bad.

>>108855412
Stallman frequently said you can sell GPL code. He makes it very clear that free means libre and gratis (free of cost) is a separate concept. If you sell code to someone, it is Free software if the purchaser can have full access to the code and can modify it how the choose. Why even hit post if you don't know what you're talking about?

>>108853945
where problem

>>108853952
You work for linux, windows works for me.

just get a macbook

>>108853945
They donate code and money to the Linux kernel project because it benefits them practically, and from a marketing perspective. This doesn't change the fact that there is no end to the amount of community developed, independed distributions out there. Basically, you are a retard and this is a nigger thread.

>>108854617
you can thank the (((OSI))) for that

>>108855703
>sorry honey, it's time to update

>>108857452
No it's not. You can turn off updates.
>sorry chud, it's time to update your 200 apt packages

>>108855728
I don't have enough money for it :(

>>108855152
>open issue
>"usecase?"
>issue gets closed
>submit pr
>"usecase?"
>pr gets closed

Meanwhile in the proprietary world
>send feedback to company
>"Thanks for your feedback dear customer. We are very sorry that you have issues with our product. We will do our best to fix this issue as soon as possible."
>they actually fix it
Damn, it's almost like when you pay for your software you are actually treated like a human being with dignity and not like dirt.